- From: tjeddo <tjeddo@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:45:26 -0700
Thank you for the summary. I understand. It seems unfortunate that legacy compatibility should have such notable constraints on evolving language. On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, tjeddo <tjeddo at gmail.com> wrote: >> Would anyone mind summarizing the design rationale for choosing the 'dt' >> element as opposed to a 'caption' element when specifying the caption of a >> figure? >> >> Looking through the current draft of the HTML5 spec it appears that the >> surrounding context of 'dt' element determines how the contents of 'dt' are >> interpreted (e.g., dl, figure, details). >> However, from a readability, and I guess aesthetic perspective, a <caption> >> tag seems like the correct fit here.? A <caption> tag is more explicit in >> terms of the intended semantics associated with a figure; whereas, <dt> >> (defined term?) is more abstract (IMO). > > The goals were to 1) use an existing element that 2) existing browsers > wouldn't mangle too horribly when they found it in an unexpected > place. ?<legend> and <caption> are both effectively unusable outside > their expected places in several major browsers right now -- they get > eaten, reparented, or any number of other horrible things. >
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 13:45:26 UTC